NEW YORK (AP) -- Wynn Resorts pays for founder and CEO Steve Wynn's residence at its tony Las Vegas hotel and casino at a cost of nearly $452,000.

Former IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano was guaranteed an administrative assistant and furnished office for life as a retirement gift — plus a $1 million office renovation.

Chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices bought the house CEO Rory Read struggled to sell for $790,000 — and gave him another $180,000 to cover his underwater mortgage.

These are not uncommon extravagances in the exclusive world of CEO perks, replete with bodyguards, chauffeurs and private jets. Last year, the median value of perks received by CEOs of big public companies was nearly $162,000, an increase of more than 9 percent, according to executive pay research firm Equilar. Perks declined in 2009, but have risen for three straight years.

Perks are just a small part of CEO compensation — the median pay for CEOs of S&P 500 companies last year was $9.7 million. And some companies are cutting back on perks, or at least getting rid of the ones that shareholders find most offensive. Still, they're a reminder of how CEOs' lifestyles are far removed from those of their shareholders, customers and employees.

Last year, companies paid for their CEOs' country club memberships, let them use corporate planes for personal travel and gave them health care plans better than their employees, among other perks.

Some corporate governance experts say giving perks to executives already making millions just exacerbates the public perception — fair or not — that they're more interested in lining their pockets than helping the company.
"They might do without a plane," says Brandon Rees, acting director at the investment office of the AFL-CIO union group, referring to CEOs' use of company planes for personal travel. "And instead invest it in (research and development)."

Companies tend to defend perks as legitimate business expenses that ultimately benefit shareholders: Flying on private planes keeps the executives safe. Country club memberships help them network. An attractive package helps a company lure the best talent.

"It is in the company's best interest if that person doesn't have to think about daily things as much as you or I might need to," says Jay Meschke, president of CBIZ Human Capital Services, a compensation and human resources consultant outside Kansas City, Mo. "You want to make sure that 100 percent of this person's efforts are devoted to the company's success."

Wynn Resorts calls CEO Wynn its "creative and organizational force," and says having him "in residence" at the Wynn Las Vegas "is a tremendous benefit to our guests and shareholders." The company says Wynn spends most of his time at the resort, and doesn't own a home in Las Vegas.

IBM says that giving the retiring CEO an office and administrative support is consistent with past practice, but declined to comment further. Advanced Micro Devices says that buying Read's old home helped speed up his transition to AMD from Lenovo, where he was chief operating officer.

Here are some other notable perks from 2012, spotted with help from GMI Ratings, which ranks companies on corporate governance metrics, and Footnoted.com, which scans SEC filings for institutional investors:

— AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB: Diebold, an ATM security company, got rid of country club benefits for all its executives except CEO Thomas Swidarski, who Equilar calculated would earn $6.1 million for 2012. The company said that "he, more so than our other executives, would benefit from the business development and networking opportunities." The company spent $72,280 on memberships for Swidarski, who stepped down in January under pressure from a board unhappy with the company's financial results.

— A PLACE TO CALL HOME: Insurer Axis Capital Holdings gave Albert Benchimol a housing allowance of $25,000 when he became CEO last year. That was included as part of a pay package, mostly in stock awards, that could be worth $22.7 million. Axis says it gives housing allowances to certain executives to help them pay for second homes in Bermuda, where the company is based, so that "talented executives" won't be deterred from joining the company. Shareholders earlier this month voted against the pay packages for Benchimol and other executives. The company didn't comment at the time.

— HOME, SAFE HOME: Las Vegas Sands spent $2.8 million to provide security for CEO Sheldon Adelson and his family. The company said it was acting on the advice of an independent security consultant for Adelson, a major donor to the Republican Party whose total pay for 2012 was about $10.7 million. That blew away the $1.6 million spent on a home security system by Amazon for Jeff Bezos, who is No. 2 in that category so far, according to GMI Ratings.

— A DRINK WITH YOUR BENEFITS?: Constellation Brands, maker of Svedka vodka and Black Velvet whiskey, gave its CEO a $10,000 "product allowance," so he could enhance his "knowledge and appreciation of our products." CEO Robert Sands, who made $7.7 million in fiscal 2012, used up $5,532 last year.

Communism in it's realized state theoretically is anarchism and it is not "liberal" by any meaning of the word. It's just the higher phase of socialism. The opposite of communism is classical liberalism, what our Founding Fathers were. It's a product of the Enlightmentment including men like Adam Smith etc. It was a different thing than what the French Revolution tried to implement. That was more of a forerunner to socialism and communism.

You are confusing economy and government again. You really need to learn to make a distinction between the two. Classical Liberalism is government theory, wheres Neo-Liberalism is economic theory.

That is why Neo-Liberalism is the opposite of communism and Classic Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Yes it is. Actually it's an oxymoron. Having a true "free-market" economy by it's very nature means there is no authoritarian government in existence. They cannot exist together.

This shows you have bought into the idea of a mixed-economy, what we have and many others, as being a free-market. Or you associate mercantilist economics aka cartel capitalism with a free market. Ya' know your crony capitalism or fascism, as you understand it.

So, we will ignore Chile? Also, you are completely wrong. A free market economy does not require a non-authoritarian government, because a government can be authoritarian on issues other than economy.

Take social issues. Who can marry who, who can do what with their body, birth control. A government can be highly restrictive and controlling without touching the economy.

Also, slavery as used in free market systems is entirely authoritarian.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

You're are a utopian dreamer not someone dealing with reality. It's the other way around, you cannot have collectivism without having BIG government at least at some point to redistribute property by force. Govt is force...it's needed for this. Then the state withers away as in utopian socialism or communism THEORETICALLY. Collectivism without BIG govt has NEVER happened. It only exists in religious orders like the Jesuits who voluntarily take a vow of poverty.

I love watching you ignore information that is right in front of you. The website gives you an example of this being done. And you don't address, just attempt to dismiss it.

Disprove that limited government collectivism happened during the Spanish Civil War. I am dealing with reality, you ignore it so you don't have to face ideas you disagree with.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

So, we will ignore Chile? Also, you are completely wrong. A free market economy does not require a non-authoritarian government, because a government can be authoritarian on issues other than economy.

We already did Chile in another thread. That was not really fully free-market capitalism. I just said it was better than Allende's socialism. That was Chicago School, Milton Friedman which I stated in the other thread was more like market socialism. You don't pay attention do you?

Quote:

Take social issues. Who can marry who, who can do what with their body, birth control. A government can be highly restrictive and controlling without touching the economy.

Such issues have zero to do with our federal or central government and little to do with economics—especially free-market economics. They matter more to Marxists because Marx merely used economics as a road for social change. Life is 7/8ths economic anyway.

Quote:

Also, slavery as used in free market systems is entirely authoritarian.

Slavery is not free-market—at all. This is more evidence you haven't a clue what free-market even means. It's based on voluntary consent. That does not happen when men and women are captured, let alone sold by their own people, for slavery.

You are confusing economy and government again. You really need to learn to make a distinction between the two. Classical Liberalism is government theory, wheres Neo-Liberalism is economic theory.

It the world of Newspeak perhaps. Even if Classical Liberalism is government theory, it's hands-off model of governance allows for free-market economics to develop. So free-markets are the result, usually, and therefore fall into the Classical Liberal category.

According to Wiki Neo Liberalism is a political philosophy that incorporates economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism So I guess they're confused too. It even categorizes the Austrian School within it which is not really NeoLiberalism and those guys scoff at that idea. It's really bogus because there's nothing "new" about the Austrians. That is the economics that was developing before our own Revolution, and largely in the early days of the Republic—BUT not exactly in the same way as NeoLiberalism. You have to understand that prior to then, govts/monarchs were practicing mercantilism. That was the economics of the time. So anything freeing of that is classical liberalism. Before mercantilism there were many collectivist and totalitarian economic systems with areas/times of some free-market. Freedom has been a fleeting condition in the history of the world.

Besides, as a lump sum total, welfare-state progressivism/socialism advocates far more govt because they administer everything from cradle to grave security including healthcare. Your inclusion of social issues isn't enough to lay claim to limited govt.

Quote:

That is why Neo-Liberalism is the opposite of communism and Classic Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism

Classical Liberalism is the opposite of communism and relies on the least amount of govt. (Remember true communism is theoretical and has not existed except in religious order) I won't use authoritarianism because, at least in our system, having some govt is using some authority because some govt is necessary to maintain order. It's a matter of where and how much. Neo-Liberalism is just another opposite but relies on more govt and as such is more authoritarian than Classical Liberalism.

You fail to understand the the collectivist models progressive welfare-state, fascism, socialism all require the most govt, and the most authoritarian govts of all because they need to use the force and violence of govt to redistribute wealth and engage in social engineering for a social revolution in the family, sex and gender which is enforced on all via law from a central govt. This social agenda is enforced from above, using activists for court cases instead of rising from the grass roots local levels where people create laws based on their values. It is egalitarian.

But again, my linear scale is a measurement of how much govt as a lump sum total in the central govt mainly. You keep trying to obfuscate my argument with labels that only have relevancy to my scale by the total lump sum of govt used by them.

Pot calling kettle here. I've ignored only what is not really relevant to my original claim or argument. You just want to reframe it while accusing me of doing what you've been doing.

Quote:

The website gives you an example of this being done. And you don't address, just attempt to dismiss it.

I thought I did but I was criticizing it as not really being done. I can't help it if you reject it.

Or perhaps you could be more specific?

Quote:

Disprove that limited government collectivism happened during the Spanish Civil War. I am dealing with reality, you ignore it so you don't have to face ideas you disagree with.

There is no such thing as limited govt collectivism in actual practice—merely theoretically. You're talking about Spanish communists or syndicalists. There were never really any true anarchists in Spain even if they "took over" large sections of Spain, because their political order led to opposite results to what they claimed. The crucial question is whether their agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. Yes they did such as confiscating money and killing people for using money. It is a planned type of economy. But a chaos of communist syndics. How rational and voluntary.

The major difficulty when analyzing of anarchism that it covers conflicting doctrines, as we established earlier.

...and thought it was darn good at explaining the linear spectrum and the confusion of left and right on fascism/socialism/communism. My only disagreement is on a king, it would depend on how that individual and his advisors rule. That's iffy.

Such issues have zero to do with our federal or central government and little to do with economics—especially free-market economics. They matter more to Marxists because Marx merely used economics as a road for social change. Life is 7/8ths economic anyway.
.

The vast majority of Authoritarian measures that people remember about Authoritarian regimes are not the economy. People remember Hitler and the Jews and other ethnic groups and the wide range of authoritarian social laws he passed. What does outlawing all youth groups but the Hitler Youth have to do with the economy?In Stalin Russia, you got 4-6 years of labor camp for being a Homosexual.

Are you saying it is impossible for a Theocracy to have a Free Market?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

We already did Chile in another thread. That was not really fully free-market capitalism. I just said it was better than Allende's socialism. That was Chicago School, Milton Friedman which I stated in the other thread was more like market socialism. You don't pay attention do you?

Chile is now socialism? Just stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

There is no such thing as limited govt collectivism in actual practice—merely theoretically. You're talking about Spanish communists or syndicalists. There were never really any true anarchists in Spain even if they "took over" large sections of Spain, because their political order led to opposite results to what they claimed. The crucial question is whether their agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. Yes they did such as confiscating money and killing people for using money. It is a planned type of economy. But a chaos of communist syndics. How rational and voluntary.

You didn't prove this statement wrong:"while the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period"

"Although the Popular Front government remained in power, the state apparatus it depended on had collapsed. Most army officers were sympathetic to Franco, and the soldiers had either joined the uprising or the workers’ resistance. Many industrialists and landowners fled to rebel-held territory.

As the old society began to fall apart, the workers’ movement organized new structures in its place. The trade unions commandeered cars and trucks to transport members of the newly formed workers’ militias; they formed ambulance services and worker-run hospitals. Communal kitchens and transportation centers were organized.29 In the cities, workers took over factories and placed them under workers’ control. They elected representatives to oversee production and coordinate work in the shops. George Orwell, who arrived in Barcelona six months after the uprising, wrote a moving description of the city under workers’ control in his book Homage to Catalonia:

It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties.... Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal....

The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining wall advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town, were crowds of people streaming constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night.... There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.30

In the countryside, peasants took control of the land, redistributing large estates and, in many places, collectivizing the land and setting up communes. An anarchist in the town of Membrilla, described their local commune:

On July 22, the big landowners were expropriated, small property was liquidated, and all the land passed into the hands of the commune....

The local treasury was empty. Among private individuals the sum of thirty thousand pesetas in all was found and seized. All the food, the clothing, the tools, etc., were distributed equitably along the population. Money was abolished, labor was collectivized, property was taken over by the community, and the distribution of consumer goods was socialized....

Three liters of wine are distributed to every person per week. Rent, electricity, water, medical attention and medicines are free.31"

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock